Almost Every House Republican Voted To Block State and Local Governments’ Ability To Protect Residents From AI Data Centers

On May 22, 2025, the House of Representatives passed its version¹ of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA),² which contained a section titled “Artificial Intelligence and Information Technology Modernization Initiative”;³ included a moratorium (AI moratorium) for 10 years on the enforcement of any state and local laws and regulations that attempted to limit, restrict, or regulate Artificial Intelligence (AI) models and systems;⁴ and would have included laws that allowed state and local governments to restrict or tax AI data centers. Had it become law, the House OBBBA’s AI moratorium would have federally preempted for a decade all state and local AI laws and regulations that might limit, restrict, or regulate AI generally and included language that would likely only apply to AI data centers specifically. The National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) warned at the time that the House OBBBA AI moratorium would “circumvent [states’] authority to regulate the permitting, construction and operation of data centers within their borders.”⁵

The Trump administration has made AI deregulation a top priority,⁶ including the preemption of state AI laws, and House Republicans have strongly backed this effort. A total of 215 Republican members voted for the House version of OBBBA,⁷ and those House Republicans who sat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee voted for it three additional times during the committee process, including Reps. Gabe Evans (R-CO), John James (R-MI), Tom Kean (R-NJ), and Mariannette Miller-Meeks (R-IA).⁸

The state and local AI moratorium was ultimately removed from the Senate’s version of OBBBA right before passage⁹ and was not in the final version of the bill.¹⁰

That does not change the fact that almost every House Republican in the 119th Congress voted for a provision¹¹ that would have stripped state and local governments of their ability to establish guardrails against the proliferation of AI data centers that harm residents. Many members of Congress who voted to take away state and local governments’ ability to limit or restrict AI data centers are now running on a platform of “local control” for data centers—local control they previously voted to severely curtail. Americans deserve to know the truth about members of Congress who have flip-flopped on their position on local control of data centers.

The state and local AI moratorium in the House OBBBA bill was located in SEC. 43201 “Artificial Intelligence and Information Technology Modernization Initiative” and specifically said:¹²

(c) Moratorium.–

(1) In general.–Except as provided in paragraph (2), no State or political subdivision thereof may enforce, during the 10-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, any law or regulation of that State or a political subdivision thereof limiting, restricting, or otherwise regulating artificial intelligence models, artificial intelligence systems, or automated decision systems entered into interstate commerce.

In this context, a “political subdivision”¹³ means substate government, such as city or county governments, but will be referred to here as “local” government.

The House OBBBA state and local AI moratorium aimed to achieve two goals: first, to preempt any state or local laws or regulations that are “limiting, restricting, or otherwise regulating” AI or AI systems including those covering frontier risk, algorithmic risk, or data centers, and second, to allow state laws that encouraged or eased AI adoption, including the building of AI data centers. CAP opposed the AI moratorium in the House bill and the subsequent Senate versions, and has noted the difficulty and downsides in crafting broad preemption legislation for AI.¹⁴

The House OBBBA AI moratorium explicitly distinguishes and separately defines artificial intelligence, artificial intelligence models, artificial intelligence systems, and automated decision systems.¹⁵ Notably, the House did not limit the moratorium to laws regulating AI models, meaning the software or computational models themselves that are digital only, but included broader definitions that encompassed physical elements of AI. The bill specifically defined “artificial intelligence system” separately as:¹⁶

(3) Artificial intelligence system.–The term “artificial intelligence system” means any data system, hardware, tool, or utility that operates, in whole or in part, using artificial intelligence.

The breadth of this definition of “artificial intelligence system” is significant because AI systems depend on an interconnected stack of software, computing hardware, physical infrastructure, and supporting utilities. AI data centers are a foundational physical component of what industry calls “The Tech Stack for AI,” which includes multiple parts of AI systems building on top of each other including electrical power and internet connectivity (utility), semiconductors/chips which are located in AI data centers (hardware), and then the data, AI models, and applications built on top of it.¹⁷

In the context of the AI moratorium and definitions, “artificial intelligence system” including “data system, hardware, tool, or utility” ¹⁸ seems to be a reference to various components of the tech stack for AI, which would include the semiconductors and the data centers that house them.

AI data centers contain and operate multiple complex hardware and data systems that both utilize AI to operate and directly execute AI workloads, meaning that at least these components operate in part using AI.¹⁹

The moratorium targeted state and local laws and regulations that might restrict AI but attempted to exempt state laws or rules that made it easier to allow AI systems, including AI data centers, using this rule of construction:²⁰

(2) Rule of construction.–Paragraph (1) may not be construed to prohibit the enforcement of–

(A) any law or regulation that–

(i) the primary purpose and effect of which is to—

(I) remove legal impediments to, or facilitate the deployment or operation of, an artificial intelligence model, artificial intelligence system, or automated decision system;

Or

(II) streamline licensing, permitting, routing, zoning, procurement, or reporting procedures in a manner that facilitates the adoption of artificial intelligence models, artificial intelligence systems, or automated decision systems;

(ii) does not impose any substantive design, performance, data-handling, documentation, civil liability, taxation, fee, or other requirement on artificial intelligence models, artificial intelligence systems, or automated decision systems [. . .]

The House OBBBA AI moratorium excluded federal law; attempted to exempt state and local “generally applicable” laws that would apply equally to non-AI models and systems; and also exempted criminal laws.²¹

While the House OBBBA AI moratorium does not contain the phrase “data center,” the specific provision to exempt laws that “streamline licensing, permitting, routing, zoning, procurement, or reporting procedures in a manner that facilitates the adoption”²² would only make sense as they relate to AI data centers, as these are terms that in the context of state and local laws and regulations apply primarily to the physical construction of structures, such as AI data centers.

Additionally, definitions used in the AI moratorium were so broad that they could encompass almost anything,²³ inviting litigation against state and local governments from any number of parties,²⁴ with CAP previously noting:

What is clear is that such ambiguous language invites lawsuits and regulatory paralysis, particularly because the reconciliation moratorium allowed private entities, not just the federal government, to bring enforcement actions. As a result, states would face the risk of being tied up in costly litigation for years, unable to advance legislation without legal challenge.²⁵

The NCSL, experts in the field of state laws, recognized the AI moratorium’s danger to state and local control of data centers and wrote in a May 2025 letter to the House Energy and Commerce Committee opposing the bill:²⁶

Restricting states’ ability to “enforce any law or regulation regulating … artificial intelligence systems” will circumvent their authority to regulate the permitting, construction and operation of data centers within their borders. This will severely limit the ability of states and localities to make decisions regarding the siting and operation of these large-scale projects, raising costs for ratepayers, jeopardizing zoning decisions that protect our mutual constituents and impacting existing infrastructure such as power grids and generating facilities.

The House OBBBA AI moratorium essentially barred state and local governments from enforcing any law that imposed a “substantive design, performance, data-handling, documentation, civil liability, taxation, fee, or other requirement” on AI,²⁷ and it required that any “fee or bond” be “reasonable and cost-based” and “treated in the same manner as other models and systems that perform comparable functions.”²⁸ This means that AI data centers, if they are considered an AI system, could not have substantive performance, transparency, documentation, taxes, or fees applied to them by state or local law or regulation.

The House OBBBA AI moratorium did attempt to allow laws or regulation to exist that “remove legal impediments to, or facilitate the deployment or operation of,” AI or “streamline licensing, permitting, routing, zoning, procurement, or reporting procedures in a manner that facilitates the adoption of artificial intelligence.”²⁹

Under the House’s OBBBA AI moratorium, state and local governments would not have been allowed to create or enforce any laws or regulations that required additional licenses, permits, zoning, taxes, or utility costs specifically targeted to AI data centers.

The E&C committee markup on their OBBBA text and amendments³⁰ started on May 13 and stretched through the night into May 14, with the markup taking over 26 hours.³¹ Reps. Gabe Evans (R-CO), John James (R-MI), Tom Kean (R-NJ), and Mariannette Miller-Meeks (R-IA) all serve on the House Energy and Commerce Committee³² and voted three times during this markup for the state and local AI moratorium.³³

The state and local AI moratorium was part of “Title IV—Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subtitle C—Communications”³⁴ and House Energy and Commerce Committee Republicans voted at least three separate times on keeping or passing the bill with the moratorium.

The committee considered COMM19, a minority amendment from ranking member Rep. Frank Pallone (D-NJ) to strike the entirety of the moratorium from the bill,³⁵ but it was rejected by the majority with a vote of 29 nays to 24 yeas, with Reps. Evans, James, Kean, and Miller-Meeks all voting to keep the AI moratorium in OBBBA.³⁶

The Republican majority later passed a motion to transmit the entire “Title IV—Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subtitle C—Communications”³⁷ as amended to the House Committee on the Budget on a party line vote with Reps. Evans, James, Kean, and Miller-Meeks all voting for the communications subtitle that included the AI moratorium.³⁸

Finally, the Republican majority voted to transmit the recommendations of the committee from the markup, including Subtitle C—Communications, which contained the state and local AI moratorium, to the House Budget committee for the next step in the process.³⁹ All Committee Republicans voted for this including Reps. Evans, James, Kean, and Miller-Meeks.⁴⁰

As the OBBBA made its way to the House floor in late May 2025, 215 House Republicans voted for the bill that included the state and local AI moratorium.⁴¹

Ultimately, the state and local AI moratorium was removed from the Senate’s version of OBBBA in a dramatic early morning vote⁴² before it became law. The Trump administration’s later state AI law preemption efforts have specifically claimed to exempt local control of data centers,⁴³ possibly because they are aware of how politically unpopular the issue has become. The votes from almost all House Republican members for the state and local AI moratorium in the House version of OBBBA are on the record and speak for themselves.⁴⁴

Had the state and local AI moratorium in the House OBBBA bill become law, it would have prevented the enforcement of any state or local laws or regulations that limited, restricted, or otherwise put additional obligations on AI or AI systems for 10 years while exempting any state or local laws or regulations designed to increase the adoption or development of AI and AI systems.⁴⁵

In addition to laws passed by state legislatures addressing AI data centers, governors are taking various executive actions on AI data centers often through executive power and regulations. It is unclear how these various executive actions would have been constrained by the AI moratorium if it had become law, though it is almost certain that they would have faced litigation for their actions.⁴⁶

In Arizona, Rep. Andy Biggs (R-AZ) is the Republican nominee for governor. During an interview with local radio station KTAR News, Biggs said data centers must supply their own power and must have a closed-loop water system⁴⁷ and, in another, he said “it becomes a local jurisdiction issue and the state’s just got to make sure we take care of the water and power situation.”⁴⁸ If the House OBBBA state and local AI moratorium that Rep. Biggs voted for had become law,⁴⁹ it likely would have prevented attempts by state or local governments to enforce new requirements on power or water for AI data centers, taking away state and local jurisdiction over AI data centers.

In Iowa, Rep. Ashley Hinson (R-IA) is the Republican nominee for U.S. Senate. In an August interview with Iowa’s News Now,⁵⁰ Rep. Hinson said when asked about data centers that, “I continue to hear from my constituents that they’re also concerned about data centers and what I have said is I believe that these decisions are best decided at the local level.” When asked by the anchor, “Should Congress step in in any way?” Hinson responded, “I think again this should be decided at the local level” and later reiterated that “those decisions should be made at the local level in terms of respecting the constituents on the ground.”⁵¹

Rep. Hinson did not mention her vote for the House OBBBA bill that contained the state and local AI moratorium,⁵² which, had it become law, would likely have eliminated for 10 years the ability for state and local governments to have full control over decisions about AI data centers.

Also in Iowa, Rep. Miller-Meeks (R-IA) was asked by Iowa’s News Now about data centers and responded, “People are rightly concerned about water usage and electricity rates going up.”⁵³ Had the House OBBBA state and local AI moratorium that Rep. Miller-Meeks voted for four times become law,⁵⁴ the state of Iowa likely would not have been able to apply any specific additional requirements or transparency obligations for AI data centers on their water and power usage.

In Michigan, Rep. John James (R-MI) is currently the Republican nominee for governor. When asked about his position on data centers in June, Rep. James was quoted on his position on data centers as “Number one, local control.”⁵⁵ But if the state and local AI moratorium that Rep. James voted for four times last year⁵⁶ had become law, it likely would have stripped the ability for state and local governments to restrict AI data centers in Michigan, making the “local control” he supports impossible.

Similarly in Michigan, Rep. Tom Barrett (R-MI) is similarly running campaign ads vowing to “protect local control” and stating “I believe you should decide on data centers, not Washington,” arguing that Washington, D.C., politicians shouldn’t dictate the future of data center development, despite voting to do exactly the opposite.⁵⁷ Rep. Barrett even went so far as to recently admit that the people he speaks to “overwhelmingly” do not support efforts that “nationalize” decisions and override local control and denounced “proposals to nationalize decisions that would override local communities about their decisions around data centers”⁵⁸ while forgetting to mention that he voted for a national proposal to override local communities about their decisions around AI data centers.⁵⁹

In New Jersey, Gov. Mikie Sherrill (D-NJ) signed S731/A796 into law which “Requires electric public utilities to develop and apply special rules for certain data centers to protect non-data center customers from increased costs.”⁶⁰ This law singling out data centers would likely not have been allowed under the House OBBBA state and local AI moratorium since it imposed specific requirements for data centers which would likely have been considered a “substantive design, performance, data-handling, documentation, civil liability, taxation, fee, or other requirement” of an AI system.⁶¹ Rep. Tom Kean (R-NJ) voted four separate times for the state and local AI moratorium in the House OBBBA bill,⁶² which would likely have prevented the state of New Jersey from enforcing a law that required “special rules for certain data centers.”⁶³

In New York, Gov. Kathy Hochul (D-NY) signed an executive order ordering a one-year moratorium on hyperscale data centers until statewide standards can be developed.⁶⁴ Rep. Mike Lawler (R-NY) has attacked the governor for these actions⁶⁵ and had the House OBBBA state and local AI moratorium he voted for become law,⁶⁶ the governor’s AI moratorium would likely have not been possible since it was targeted at hyperscale data centers, which are generally AI data centers.

In Pennsylvania, the state legislature passed a law in July 2026 that required specific energy and water reporting from data centers.⁶⁷ If the House version of OBBBA state and local AI moratorium had become law, these requirements would likely not be enforceable as they imposed substantive documentation requirements on data centers that use a certain amount of power, which are primarily AI data centers. In August, Gov. Josh Shapiro (D-PA) signed an executive order that required all data center permits to comply with the “Governor’s Responsible Infrastructure Development (GRID) Requirements” and “Establishing Strict Guardrails for Data Center Development.”⁶⁸

Had the AI moratorium in the May 2025 House version of OBBBA that Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA), Ryan Mackenzie (R-PA), Rob Bresnahan (R-PA), and Scott Perry (R-PA) voted for⁶⁹ become law, it likely would have banned the development of these GRID requirements and guardrails specifically for data centers.⁷⁰

In Wisconsin, Rep. Tom Tiffany (R-WI) is the Republican nominee for governor. On Tiffany’s campaign website, “Data Centers” is the sole subsection in the solutions section of his campaign website, and it states, “Give local communities the final say,” and that, “No data center should be forced on a community that doesn’t want it. Local residents should have the final say over what gets built in their backyard.”⁷¹ In an August interview with local Wisconsin news station 620 WTMJ, when asked about data centers, Tiffany said, “there should be local input. There should be local control. Local people should have a say in whether it’s being built in their community.”⁷² Had the House OBBBA bill that contained the state and local AI moratorium that Rep. Tiffany voted for become law,⁷³ it would have likely made “local control” over AI data centers impossible by restricting the enforcement of any state or local laws and regulations that limit, restrict, or regulate AI systems like AI data centers.

Similarly, Rep. Derrick Van Orden (R-WI) has posted on X that “conditions for data centers have not changed and are not negotiable: 1) must have local buy in.”⁷⁴ But it is hard to understand what Rep. Van Orden means by “local buy in” because if the House OBBBA state and local AI moratorium that he voted for⁷⁵ had become law, it would have preempted any state or local laws or regulations attempting to limit or restrict AI data centers.

Ultimately, had the House’s proposed OBBBA state and local AI moratorium become law, state or local laws or regulations that add any requirements to AI or AI systems, including AI data centers, would not have been enforceable but any laws or regulations that made it easier to deploy or operate AI, including AI data centers, would have been allowed. It would have tied the hands of state and local governments seeking to govern AI data centers, limiting their ability to limit, restrict, or regulate the local impacts of these facilities, including their demands on electricity, water, land, and other public resources.

Many of the members of Congress in Arizona, Iowa, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin now touting “local control” for data centers all voted to take away state and local governments’ ability to limit or restrict AI data centers when they cast their vote for the House’s version of OBBBA that contained the state and local AI moratorium.